A comparative study of new-type-retractor-assisted wiltse approach TLIF, MIS-TLIF and traditional PLIF in the treatment of single- level lumbar degenerative diseases

Background To compare the clinical efficacy of new-type-retractor assisted wiltse approach Transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)in single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods A retrospective study was conducted by analyzing clinical and imaging information of consecutive patients with single-level lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent either the new-type-retractor assisted wiltse approach TLIF or the MIS-TLIF or the traditional PLIF. 87 concurrent patients with similar age ,weight and severity of the imaging and symptom between June 2016 and December 2019 were included(wiltse approach 29 cases; MIS-TLIF 28 cases; PLIF 30 cases).The three groups were compared for perioperative indicators(including intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, bed time), creatine kinase (CK), Visual Analogue Scale(VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, intervertebral fusion rate, muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration(including ratio of multifidus atrophy and ratio of lean-to-total cross sectional area(CSA)). Results Intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume and bed time in MIS-TILF group and wiltse group was significantly lower than PLIF group. The operative time and intraoperative radiation time of MIS-TILF group was significantly longer than wiltse group and PLIF group. CK level in wiltse and MIS-TILF group were significantly lower than PLIF group 1 and 3 days after surgery. PLIF group back pain VAS score was higher than wiltse and MIS-TLIF group. PLIF group displayed a higher ODI and a lower JOA score than the wiltse and MIS-TLIF group 6 months and 12 months after surgery. There was no significant statistical difference in lower limb pain VAS score and intervertebral fusion rate. Ratio of multifidus atrophy in the PLIF group was significantly higher than the wiltse group and the MIS-TILF group. Ratio of lean-to-total CSA (cross-sectional area) in PLIF group was lower than wiltse group and MIS-TLIF group after surgery. There was no significant difference between wiltse group and MIS-TLIF group except that MIS-TLIF group showed longer operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy time while lower blood loss and drainage volume. 2 cases of durotomy and 2 cases of incision fat liquefaction occurred in PLIF group, 1 case of skin edge necrosis was found in MIS-TILF group. Patients were followed up at 3 months,6moyhs,12months after surgery, The mean follow-up time of the patients was 12.14±2.78 months in wiltse group, 13.57±2.60 months in MIS-TLIF group, and 12.73±2.80 months in PLIF group, with no significant diffirence among 3 groups. (P༞0.05) Conclusion Wiltse approach TLIF assisted with the new-type retractor is a more convenient and simple minimally invasive surgical method than traditional PLIF and MIS-TLIF, which requires a long learning curve, long operation and fluoroscopy time.

An Acute Spinal Intradural Hematoma after an Extraforaminal Wiltse Approach: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

A nontraumatic spontaneous spinal acute subdural hematoma (sSDH) is a rare complication after spinal surgery. Although an sSDH is often associated with anticoagulation therapy, vascular malformations, or lumbar puncture, the pathogenesis of nontraumatic spontaneous sSDH remains unclear. We present the case of an intradural hematoma after an extraforaminal surgery through the Wiltse approach for an extraforaminal disk herniation at L5/S1. This 58-year-old woman experienced hypoesthesia and progressive motor dysfunction in the left leg several hours postoperation. Urgent magnetic resonance imaging revealed an intradural hematoma at the L1/L2 to L2/L3 level in the ventral dural sac proximal to the surgical level. Surgical decompression was performed. There was no evidence of trauma, coagulopathy, or anticoagulation therapy. To our knowledge, this case is the first to report an acute sSDH proximal to the surgery level after an extraforaminal spinal surgery through the Wiltse approach for an extraforaminal disk herniation. It illustrates that attentive postoperative neurologic monitoring, even in the absence of intraoperative irregularities, remains important to diagnose and treat this complication at the early stage.